was it? eh..it was a thought. There is a reason the Spanish quit being a World Power long before then, bankrupt and fighting wars...stupid virus hit them hard.
Could the CSA fight Spain?
- Thread starter CSA938
- Start date
was it? eh..it was a thought. There is a reason the Spanish quit being a World Power long before then, bankrupt and fighting wars...stupid virus hit them hard.
I'm kinda making fun of "CSA secedes, the Union promptly falls apart" timelines. Deseret I can see, and even NYC if crazy anti-draft gangster syndicates take over, but California and Oregon Territory are just silly. California has no reason to be its own nation in the 1860s. Well, unless its population was different and there was still a large ex-Mexican Latino population there.
Maybe the better question is - who could lob off pieces of the Confederacy?
For instance, maybe Spain could take back Florida?
France takes back Louisiana?
Mexico will bite back a few pieces of Texas.
For instance, maybe Spain could take back Florida?
France takes back Louisiana?
Mexico will bite back a few pieces of Texas.
How much of this does the Union want to see? European powers dicking around in North America probably brought about the CSA, who in Washington wants more of that?
bguy
Donor
Are we talking about the same Spain that was recently beaten by the Dominican Republic. And spent most of the later half of the 19th century torn by civil wars and colonial revolts. How is it possibly going to take and hold New Orleans?
What I would like to know in regards to the CSA and Spain is why would they even go to war? What possible reason does the CSA have to even want Cuba? Wasn't antebellum Southern imperialism predicated on a desire for more slave states to maintain a balance with the number of free states? That's no longer a concern if the South is an independent nation. And such a blatantly aggressive land grab against a European nation would needlessly antagonize Britain and France and expose the CSA to attack from the US. Cuba hardly seems worth the risk, especially since even if the Confederates somehow defeat the Spanish they will then have to fight the Cuban rebels. If anything I would expect the CSA to be on friendly terms with Spain (a fellow slaveholding nation afterall) and to try and help the Spanish maintain control (and slavery) in Cuba.
Which leads me to my other question, in a world with an independent CSA, how long can Spain hold onto Cuba? Do the Cuban rebels have any chance of winning without US intervention and with the possibility of covert or overt aid from the CSA to the Spanish government?
Yep "we just fought a war mainly on self determination and end of slavery, the first failed, the second not ( abolition by 1880 IIRC ), lets support the neighbor nation that stills practice slavery"
More than likely the Union would see it as a sign of weakness on part of the CSA and grab whatever is left. It may or may not then kick out some or all of the European powers. Spain would be the easiest to kick out. It is hard to see how it could stop the US kicking it off of the mainland.
Cotton was not the most valuable crop in 1913, let alone "the largest single sector in the OTL US".
Corn production was $1692 million.
Cotton was $798 million.
Hay was $797 million.
Wheat was $610 million.
Or the Midwest of the USA. Or Germany. Or India. Or France. Or Russia. Or Belgium. Or Italy.
OTL's ACW left the CSA with crumbling infrastructure, massive inflation, and $2.7 billion in debt. 10% of their work force was serving in the Union Army, probably another 10% were dead or crippled by the war. You have a rather unique definition of wealthy.
And you seem unfamiliar with the term 'resource curse". If an oil boom guarantees wealth for the citizens of a country, then the members of OPEC should have the highest standard of living on the planet.
But on the Quality of Life Index Qatar is 41st, Ecuador is 52nd, Venezuela 59th, Kuwait 55th, United Arab Emirates 69th, Libya 70th, Saudi Arabia 72nd, Algeria 81st, Iran 88th, Nigeria 107th. Angola and Iraq are too bad off to be put on the list.
Free Lancer
Banned
Yeah thats why i didn't even bother responding to the rest of tigers sentence.
Cotton is dead Hail King Corn.
Cotton is dead Hail King Corn.
I can see that. "Yeah, Spain, we love the help, but don't think for a minute that you're going to get to keep any of that."
The Confederate Constitution says otherwise.
I expect the Confederacy will try. Considering how well they did in Arizona, I also expect them to fail.
Of course it is. Slaves are a source of wealth and a sign of status, plus Confederate doctrine says it's good for the slaves and protects society.
bguy
Donor
Because the Confederates would fear that a successful revolution in Cuba (especially if Cuban blacks are a significant part of the rebellion) might inspire their own black population to revolt. (As well as be a source of material aid to any such uprising.) And because at least as long as the Spanish are still practicing slavery in Cuba, the Confederates are less of an international pariah.
Yeah, the most they can hope for is that the US might be willing to go through the motion of buying it.. at a cut rate. Sort of "Thanks for your help. Here is $200 million for the land. Sell it to us or we take it anyways."
Spengler
Banned
1. So how do the industrialize in an area that really hates the confederacy?
2. The south was dominated by the planter class who really didn't like industrializing, why would they encourage it?
3. Why would the USA support the confederacy, especially if the confederacy likely takes to purging east Tennessee?
4. Yeah I'd like to see them try to actually conduct wars with out a navy.
5. Yeah and the CSA cares why?
67th the Oil boom will be cut very short by the sudden American "humanitarian intervention" to protect the "christian negros enslaved by the southern thugs" which will include taking over the oil fields.
1) How do they manage to keep it from being an endless bleeding sore, even?
2) No idea. Even allowing for the handful of southerners who were in favor of industry, it was underdeveloped - and it will be even less developed when instead of say, Pennsylvanians being asked to come down to help find oil in Texas (what happened OTL), Pennsylvanians have no great interest in helping Texans TTL.
3) This.
4) I'm sure the Confederacy will have some kind of navy, but it being a useful coastal defense force would be an accomplishment.
5) Because ideological states are vulnerable to letting realistic minded people take over, I guess.
6) This, on the other hand, I can see some reason to disagree. If the Confederacy somehow sets up oil wells in Texas - and the OTL course of things is likely not merely butterflied but outright averted given that northerners won't be involved - it might well get away with it. But that's assuming that the CSA in forty years isn't getting invaded anyway.
Not a chance. Whatever the victrorious CSA lacked in diplomatic or power projection finess skills, they would have an extremely lethal and very skillfully led ground army. Any attempts by other powers to grab back Confederate territory would result in diasster for the grabbers (with the exception of a re-armed and re-motivated Federal U.S. power).
That goes doubly so for Mexio. A Mexican move on Texas would really just be a large scale raid and could lead to the CSA grabbing parts of Mexico proper, or Mexican territories such as Baja Calififornia or parts of the Yucatan.
It (slavery) may well be legal in 1898, but not practiced much at all. Mechanization in agriculture was going to make plantation slavery un economical by 1885 or so. Factory based slavery was not an option as poor whites needed those jobs.
My guess is that the CSA would bow to international pressure and economic reality in 1890s and keep slavery legal technically, but make it increasingly more difficult to actually practice slavery (slaves can be owned, but not sold. Children of slaves are born free - well at least as sharecroppers).
Last edited:
However, the CSA would be dead broke and begging for funds. The Europeans would have a real navy and a decent number of machine guns while the CSA would have neither in signifigant numbers. I think it likely that they would hold on to their land but it would hardly be a cakewalk for them.
Mechnical cotton picking didn't start until the 1950s so slaves would still be used there.
Reggie Bartlett
Banned
Then in the CSA at this time there is a nasty beetle eating up all the cotton.
Not to mention, an independent CSA now has access to all the shiny new Carbines and rifles the Europeans make. Not to mention that, but the CSA at this point would have it's own prominent munitions industry in Richmond, and possibly one in Georgia, so a weapons economy for the CSA should be considered. Browning and Tredgar are going to make the Confederates some coin, and that should be considered.